Drill Now for oil

It's likely their potential impact has been overstated by many but *if an enzyme can be found* to break down cellulose economically, SCRUB plants grown on marginal land can be put to use (switchgrass) and plant stalks and such that some consider WASTE could have one more process applied before that eventuality.

...but, just like wind power (which isn't available all the time), it's a part of the picture that shouldn't be poo-pooed as a component of the eventual solution.

...and the LOCAL nature of biotech conversion (with the resulting reduced impact of transport of fuels) seems likely to be a doubleplus good thing.

Let 'im. He's the one that made the outrageous claims.

Disagree. If you kill the golden goose... We are on the negative slope of the Laffer curve, so increased taxes mean *less* revenue to spend. ...something only Obama is stupid enough to *admit* is a good thing.

Appropriate last name you got there.

Do you mean the one they published in SciAm, with the top of the curve looking like a plate of spaghetti? That's when I quit subscribing to the mag. Their argument against the Laffer curve could be applied equally well to refute statistical analysis of gas behavior.

John

But if you deficit-spend you're effectively levying an undeclared tax, accumulating a debt. That's my point. You're stealth-taxing. It will still come due, but with interest.

Meanwhile you've put the federal government in competition with citizens for borrowing money, raising interest rates, yadda yadda yadda.

Better is not to spend so much in the first place.

Cheers, James Arthur

It is polluting the ground. We need to get it up into the air, where it belongs.

I think we need to grow a lot of hemp.

It's a peripheral issue, IMO, unless you think a government's chief concern should be of increasing its return from its servants, rather than providing services while presenting the lightest possible burden on same.

Maximizing host yield is a parasite's calculation, not a government's.

Cheers, James Arthur

You don't know that.

Exactly, except for government has become essentially parasitic and/or serving special interests.

The Laffer curve has to have some truth to it /a priori/. The stupid thing about using it as an arguing point is that it totally bypasses the basic moral/justice question of "Should there be a tax for purpose X and how much?"

If the question is "should government revenue be maximized," then the answer to that question is always "no." And that is the way the Laffer curve comes up in discussion. I have _never_ heard any of the people arguing the point care at all whether a tax is justified ... _never_. This was never Laffer's point and moreover, it was not even an point that Laffer claimed as originally his. It has become an item of "right-left" bickering rather than just a simple economic proposition, which is what it really is. Marginal tax rates were high when Laffer said this, so his timing was probably good as a reminder that there are limits to the "benefits" of taxation.

Laffer was right in principle, but it is extremely hard to actually know where some population and its "economy" (a nation, for example) is on a taxRate/Revenue basis. An economy is not some simple toy to experiment with -- to see how it acts. An international comparison is fraught with perilous assumption making. It is not "chaos," as Gardner says, it is too complex for people to understand. A lack of rational understanding does not equate to an absense of orderly behavior. A robin does not need a blueprint to build a nest.

You mean the neo-Laffer curve.

"The neo-Laffer curve is a satirical construct created by Martin Gardner to establish the fallacy of one of many "laissez-faire" ideas that became collectively known as Reaganomics. It demonstrates a basic error of mathematical confusion that held in its sway, among other things, the executive office of the United States of America."

Google it

Well, I guess I'm ignorant of it. I'll have to look that up.

Jon

Do what I intend to do, John. Work for it. Don't comment before you at least check up on what someone else says. Like ... maybe, at least look at Wiki?

"also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and commonly called SOX or Sarbox; is a United States federal law enacted on July 30, 2002 in response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of the affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets. Named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH), the Act was approved by the House by a vote of 423-3 and by the Senate 99-0. President George W. Bush signed it into law"

Then your comments might be more informed.

Jon

As usual Richard Henry is misinformed about the context of the law.

Likewise that nutcase Hansen from NASA who wants to criminally charge CEO's.

Can't be done, but I'll not tell the leftist weenies why until they put their foot in it.

It also involves the mis-actions of one of their "heroes" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

So basically, you made them misfire as they cornered on their lids. :)

Can we also blame you for that guy in the left lane with his right blinker on too?

Might help if you read it, _and_ understood it.

...Jim Thompson

It has been discredited for over years now. People have been trying to find proof of it in the real data and it never seems to show up. Clinton raised taxes and the economy rocketed ahead. Bush cut them and slow growth was the result. Clintons tax increase increased the amount of money the government got and Bushes decreased it.

The real drag on the economy is nonproductive spending whether it is funded by taxes or borrowing doesn't matter in the long run. Nonproductive spending burns up wealth and produces nothing.

You got it nearly right. You have to cut the useless spending like the bridges to nowhere etc. If you cut the productive part and increase the nonproductive by less, you can make matters worse.

If the government builds a power plant, or useful highway bridge, it can be good for the economy. If they make a bridge to an island in Alaska or another bomb to drop on Iraq, the money is gone forever.

It is specific to accounting lies. It wouldn't cover the "smoking is good for you" sort.